quapman Posted January 6, 2014 Share Posted January 6, 2014 But it is sad that we have to look so hard for it. I'm not so sure what you're hung up on. I have always had to look for music I like. I don't like mainstream music very much. Sounds more like you are comparing genres because I just don't see your point at all. Are you actually saying that the musicians are not as good now as there were in the 70s? I disagree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rct Posted January 6, 2014 Share Posted January 6, 2014 I understand that. The 'charts' reflects what people are buying. I know that and that is my point. They don't buy music. They buy what they think is music. They don't buy yours or mine. We can grip that and live with it, or not, it's up to you. Compare the musicianship of 1973's bands on the chart and the billboard 2013. Not even close. My overall point is that it is sad that musicianship and the guitar itself has lost ground in the mainstream. I know I can find it elsewhere, I get that. But it is sad that we have to look so hard for it. Billboard Top 20 for 1973: 1.Tony Orlando and Dawn Jim Croce Roberta Flack Marvin Gaye Paul McCartney and Wings Kris Kristofferson Elton John Billy Preston Carly Simon Diana Ross Vicki Lawrence Clint Holmes Stories Helen Reddy Billy Paul(AWESOME) Edgar Winter Group Dobie Gray Sweet Stevie Wonder 20.Cher Billboard Top 20 for 2013: 1.Macklemore Robin Thicke Imagine Dragons Baauer(huh?) Macklemore again Justin Timberlake Pink Bruno Mars Florida Georgia Line Katy Perry Bruno Mars again Lumineers Rhianna Daft Punk Lorde Taylor Swift Miley Cyrus Miley Cyrus Avicci 20. Justin Timberlake again Well, the top 20 from 73 don't seem all that much more muscially inclined than anyone in this past year, no more or less guitar-centric than this past year. I worked with Billy Paul on his comeback record, and look how far that got him! rct Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Surreal For Real Posted January 6, 2014 Author Share Posted January 6, 2014 I'm not so sure what you're hung up on. I have always had to look for music I like. I don't like mainstream music very much. Sounds more like you are comparing genres because I just don't see your point at all. Are you actually saying that the musicians are not as good now as there were in the 70s? I disagree. I am saying that the public doesn't value the musicians. I am not comparing genres, I am comparing eras. Back the day, if an instrumental made the top 20 or top 10 that meant the public valued it. That will never happen again because the public does not value it. They value dancing and gossip. It is sad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Surreal For Real Posted January 6, 2014 Author Share Posted January 6, 2014 They buy what they think is music. They don't buy yours or mine. We can grip that and live with it, or not, it's up to you. Billboard Top 20 for 1973: 1.Tony Orlando and Dawn Jim Croce Roberta Flack Marvin Gaye Paul McCartney and Wings Kris Kristofferson Elton John Billy Preston Carly Simon Diana Ross Vicki Lawrence Clint Holmes Stories Helen Reddy Billy Paul(AWESOME) Edgar Winter Group Dobie Gray Sweet Stevie Wonder 20.Cher Billboard Top 20 for 2013: 1.Macklemore Robin Thicke Imagine Dragons Baauer(huh?) Macklemore again Justin Timberlake Pink Bruno Mars Florida Georgia Line Katy Perry Bruno Mars again Lumineers Rhianna Daft Punk Lorde Taylor Swift Miley Cyrus Miley Cyrus Avicci 20. Justin Timberlake again Well, the top 20 from 73 don't seem all that much more muscially inclined than anyone in this past year, no more or less guitar-centric than this past year. I worked with Billy Paul on his comeback record, and look how far that got him! rct So you are trying to tell me that anyone from 2013 musically compares to Stevie Wonder, Elton John, Billy Preston, Paul McCartney, Edgar Winter, etc??? Who compares, Miley Cyrus? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sailjunkie Posted January 6, 2014 Share Posted January 6, 2014 I understand that. The 'charts' reflects what people are buying. I know that and that is my point. They don't buy music. Compare the musicianship of 1973's bands on the chart and the billboard 2013. Not even close. I do write and play plenty of original instrumentals and wouldn't even think of trying to publish them, no market for it and unless I made it platinum it would be a financial loss to change careers. My overall point is that it is sad that musicianship and the guitar itself has lost ground in the mainstream. I know I can find it elsewhere, I get that. But it is sad that we have to look so hard for it. I understand where you are coming from. I feel the same way. Everytime I go out with my wife to some restaurant or bar and the juke box is on, I hear everything plain as day, and, it usually being top 40, grates on me. No one else around me hears it or even notices it playing, but it bothers the hell out of me (so, I usually pop a few bucks in and play something long by the Allman Bros or something). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darling67 Posted January 6, 2014 Share Posted January 6, 2014 Your whole argument pre-supposes there was a time when the 'Popular Charts' or the 'Hit Parade' were populated in the main by instrumental music. Instrumental music has never dominated the 'Pop Charts'. People who buy 'Pop Records' like to listen to singers. They like lyircs. They like to 'sing-a-long' to the music. P. Yeah… there was a time when GUITAR bands were dominating both the underground AND the mainstream. It was the nature of the music industry, post-Beatles and the subsequent British Invasion. When I was growing up (high school and before that), synthesizer music and dance-driven music—all of which I considered light-weight music and had "0" interest in—was what was popular and dominating the charts. But, even then, there were still guitar-driven bands, with guitar heroes, like AC/DC and Van Halen, etc. who were selling records and getting all sorts of airplay on the radio. So it's all perception, really… what we are listening to, and how that fits in with what's popular at the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rct Posted January 6, 2014 Share Posted January 6, 2014 So you are trying to tell me that anyone from 2013 musically compares to Stevie Wonder, Elton John, Billy Preston, Paul McCartney, Edgar Winter, etc??? Who compares, Miley Cyrus? I don't know man, I don't know any of these people beyond that they are all, all 40 entries in the post, all of them are pop artists. They performed pop songs. You don't have to play crap to perform, sell, and score big and retire off a pop song. Period. There is no musical proficiency test before you make yer record. Florida Georgia line is a pretty good band, they play their instruments, look like they are having a blast, and I'm pretty sure they are. Timberlake plays everything in the studio. Katy Perry plays everything in the studio but the drums. Bruno Mars plays everything including the brass. Robin Thicke and Pink are both pretty good piano players. I don't know how you would compare them, I really don't. If you have some objective comparison, years in music school, I don't know, instruments mastered maybe, we could maybe figure it out. But to just say them guys back then were better musicians just doesn't cut it. I've been around some of these kids today and look out. They got some pretty madd studio smarts and know their way around how to do it. That alone is worth more than any number of hours spent studying arpeggios and practicing sweep picking. It is my understanding that Miley sings the first three lines of the song, stops, tells them how to set stuff, eq, reverb, that stuff, goes from there and usually gets it first time through. Try that with all them peoples looking at you, you'll see what talent they got. rct Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quapman Posted January 6, 2014 Share Posted January 6, 2014 I am not comparing genres, I am comparing eras. To me those are both the same thing. Every era spawns a new genre. I hear you to some degree. If you want to blame something blame MTV. As far as I'm concerned it all started going downhill when music became visual. But unlike you, I actually think there is alot of good stuff being made. I think music and guitars are making a big comeback. And I don't think it's unusual or sad to have to go look for it. From my perspective it has always been that way. And looking at the charts rct provided,, I cared as little about the 1973 chart in 1973,, as little as I care about the 2013 chart today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rct Posted January 6, 2014 Share Posted January 6, 2014 And looking at the charts rct provided,, I cared as little about the 1973 chart in 1973 TOO MUCH HERB rct Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quapman Posted January 6, 2014 Share Posted January 6, 2014 TOO MUCH HERB rct lol... perhaps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlie brown Posted January 6, 2014 Share Posted January 6, 2014 CB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Surreal For Real Posted January 6, 2014 Author Share Posted January 6, 2014 I don't know man, I don't know any of these people beyond that they are all, all 40 entries in the post, all of them are pop artists. They performed pop songs. You don't have to play crap to perform, sell, and score big and retire off a pop song. Period. There is no musical proficiency test before you make yer record. Florida Georgia line is a pretty good band, they play their instruments, look like they are having a blast, and I'm pretty sure they are. Timberlake plays everything in the studio. Katy Perry plays everything in the studio but the drums. Bruno Mars plays everything including the brass. Robin Thicke and Pink are both pretty good piano players. I don't know how you would compare them, I really don't. If you have some objective comparison, years in music school, I don't know, instruments mastered maybe, we could maybe figure it out. But to just say them guys back then were better musicians just doesn't cut it. I've been around some of these kids today and look out. They got some pretty madd studio smarts and know their way around how to do it. That alone is worth more than any number of hours spent studying arpeggios and practicing sweep picking. It is my understanding that Miley sings the first three lines of the song, stops, tells them how to set stuff, eq, reverb, that stuff, goes from there and usually gets it first time through. Try that with all them peoples looking at you, you'll see what talent they got. rct The structure of a Katy Perry/Bruno Mars/Miley Cyrus song is quite simple. The timing is quite simple, un-original and the technical ability needed to perform said songs are beginner level. The art of recording today is much simpler, I have been around studios for 30 years and have seen the transformation up close. I have actually been in the studio with 2 Grammy winning bands (not bragging, just trying to make a point) and they would be the first to tell you that it is sooo much easier today that it was 25 years ago. There is a reason that a Miley Cyrus song from 2013 will not be on the air in 2023, yet Frankenstein (the instrumental from 1973 billboard list) will be. I don't really want to rip the above artists...but you are making me...:) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pippy Posted January 6, 2014 Share Posted January 6, 2014 ...I have been around studios for 30 years and... ...you are surprised by what makes it 'Big' in the charts? ...you are surprised there are so few instrumentals in the charts? ...you are surprised so few guitar-centric 'Anthems' have spots in the charts? Please............ P. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riffster Posted January 6, 2014 Share Posted January 6, 2014 ...you are surprised by what makes it 'Big'? Please............ P. Exactly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Surreal For Real Posted January 6, 2014 Author Share Posted January 6, 2014 ...you are surprised by what makes it 'Big' in the charts? ...you are surprised there are so few instrumentals in the charts? ...you are surprised so few guitar-centric 'Anthems' have spots in the charts? Please............ P. Not surprised at all. All things deteriorate, not surprised at all. Just sad that we will never see a Jimi, a Page, a Clapton, a Blackmore, a Vai, a Zappa, etc., or anything close again. It's been a loooong time since then...people forget. Athletes have evolved, technology has evolved, medicine has evolved...not music. Very sad... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
10K-DB Posted January 6, 2014 Share Posted January 6, 2014 Man,,this is a big one. If you care to look at history of whats happened over the past 30 yrs{ouch,,Im dating myself,lol} there has been a shift away from many things musically from the gtr based music :( With the advent of sampling,.drum software,,ect,,on,,and on. Things has de-volved to an almost non-skilled,or at least a lesser skilled need to be "creative" and sell music. Also,,social trends have influenced all this as well. When I was learning music,,its was "cool" to be as good as you could at your instrument,,innovative with your music writing,,and thats what we all tried to do. But so many things have gone in a "uncreative" "non-innovative" direction,,we have what we have today. Theres also the fact that music in general is not as in demand as it once was back in the day. Think: video games,,internet,addiction to TV,,and many other distractions from being "creative" Sad,,but true. And if you do some research on what many kids and young adults spend there time on these days,,it could seem as though the Gtr based music era may be on its way out. Not good for music instrument Mfg's,or our society either. We miss out on creative beauty+ inspiration from so many art forms,,whether it music,,painting,,sculpture, any type of "creative arts" if you will. Ill never stop playing/writing gtr based music,,but I will incorporate other instruments{ strings,,brass,choir voice vocals,,pedal steel,keys,,ect} to the foundations of what I write ,,as to challenge myself to take my music to a higher level than what it was when I first wrote it on just the Gtr by itself. Everybody has a different take on what they value,socially,,musically,and just about anything under the sun,,I guess thats whats makes us all unique and different,,which is a good thing. :) Just sayin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riffster Posted January 6, 2014 Share Posted January 6, 2014 Not surprised at all. All things deteriorate, not surprised at all. Just sad that we will never see a Jimi, a Page, a Clapton, a Blackmore, a Vai, a Zappa, etc., or anything close again. It's been a loooong time since then...people forget. Athletes have evolved, technology has evolved, medicine has evolved...not music. Very sad... What current rock bands (say that came out in the last 10 years) do yo listen to? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdgm Posted January 6, 2014 Share Posted January 6, 2014 Good topic but Surreal - you can't win this one.... It is a very old stance/argument/position. All things change; consider the simplicity of "Please Please Me" or "She Loves You" versus a typical Sinatra (or even Perry Como, Jack Jones, etc) arrangement of the time. Popular taste will always 'default to the lowest common denominator' - I haven't expressed that very well but think you get what I mean - and record companies will always be about max profit. We were lucky to be there for all that 'experimental' (i.e. not-so-commercial) stuff, which we only got to hear because they hoped it would sell and thus backed it. And most people aren't musicians and will listen to and buy what is played on the media. They want to be entertained. You could also bemoan the fact that people watch and seem to enjoy reality TV competition shows more than Shakespeare or something with 'high-culture' content. That will never change. Does the next generation learn from the previous one's mistakes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
surfpup Posted January 6, 2014 Share Posted January 6, 2014 You're just looking in the wrong places. This! If you are waiting for mainstream radio to deliver some good music to you then you are definitely wasting your time. I think that ship sailed a long time ago (if it ever existed at all). Every era has great music and crap. Just gotta look for the good. College radio, satellite radio, and the Internet are more likely good sources. Guitar forums can be useful too. I have been turned on to lots of great music in this place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saturn Posted January 6, 2014 Share Posted January 6, 2014 I can't give facts or speak with the authority of some of the great responses that I've read in this topic. I can just give my opinion of how I look at it. I do think that for the most part the guitar era is over. Not completely gone, but for now at least it seems it's heyday has past. I'm not complaining about that though. I still love my the great music of the past, but how many more guitar riffs do I need to hear? There are still some great guitar oriented bands here and there, but it's so hard to write a riff now days that doesn't copy off one that's already been written. I'm sure I will be blasted for saying this, but I have actually been listening to some of the vocal oriented pop music on the radio the past few years and actually like some of it. Not because of guitar playing or musicianship, but I just like the songs and melodies. Now, other than Foster The People, I haven't bought any albums and only know the songs that make the radio. But some of the rock/pop bands I have liked the last few years are (in no order)FTP, MGMT, Fun, Of Monsters and Men, Capital Cities, Imagine Dragons, Passion Pit, Bruno Mars and more. My current favorite is that song Pompeii by Bastille. I can say that I don't like the sound of today's digital studio stuff compared to the studio masterpieces they made in the 60s-80s, but life goes on. If the technology had been there for the Beatles, I'm sure they would have used it. Anyway, yeah I think the guitar era is pretty much over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kaleb Posted January 6, 2014 Share Posted January 6, 2014 This might be a bit off topic, but I wonder about what is the next evolution of metal? I mean, can it get any faster, more distorted, screaming, down-tuned, etc? I think it is going to have to abandon the "more" mentality to evolve. It did evolve with crossover and industrial. Neither subgenres I care for. Now there's djent and all that stuff. Don't care for that either. I think a new subgenre for metal could be "blues metal". Like a mixture between Metallica and SRV. Blues riffs, themes, and vocals, but with the sound of thrash. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kaleb Posted January 6, 2014 Share Posted January 6, 2014 The guitar is NOT over. But it is stagnant. And I think that is due to the state of the music industry. The kids need a band that rocks, that they can easily discover. Not every 15-year old goes out of their way to find good music. Think of how many youngsters were ignorant of music, but that was all changed for them when The Beatles appeared on Ed Sullivan. They made those kids wanna play music and be in a band, or at least develop a passion for music. Rock and metal bands don't have that kind of market now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveFord Posted January 6, 2014 Share Posted January 6, 2014 Musical styles and tastes come and go but the guitar as an instrument seems to be holding it's own in terms of popularity. The big synthesizer scare didn't wipe it out and nothing really has come along to replace it. Gibson appears to be doing their part to encourage younger players with their price drops on their solid bodies and it's about time is all I can say. I never cared too much about chart breaking releases but I do agree that modern pop music is pretty pathetic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
krock Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 I'm sure I will be blasted for saying this, but I have actually been listening to some of the vocal oriented pop music on the radio the past few years and actually like some of it. Not because of guitar playing or musicianship, but I just like the songs and melodies. I also listen to a few pop artists, I find that a lot of the singers are open to performing a multitude of different styles. Take Fergie from the black eyed peas for example who released a song with slash or john mayer with katy perry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NHTom Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 I go back to whats hot now dictates. For example, growing up in the 80's, everyone needed to be glam.........southern rock bands got glam, blues rock got glam, metal got glam.....it was what was happening. Heck, Kiss had disco tunes in the 70's.......lol. For me, I see bands like Buckcherry, Hinder, and some of the old guard turning out great new stuff like Social Distortion, The Offspring, and I really like what people like Frank Turner and Imelda May are doing......guitar is far from gone. For me, its out there..........not as much or easy to find as say the glam 80's, but lots of people still doing great guitar work. I'm even glad to see country getting a little more back to country. Country has always had some great players, and they got lost for a while where country became a catch all for people who couldn't make it in pop. There are some good players and songwriters in the country field again which is very refreshing. just my .02 NHTom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.